Reference https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/powerpoint12345s-appeal.54475/ So Aegis's reply really has me off put to be honest. PowerPoint clearly had a gore spray, and was warned by Nuno to change it. After doing so, he was banned by a second moderator, Aegis. Why is one moderator overriding the punishment/warning of another? I'd be pissed off as hell if I received a warning and complied, just to be banned afterwards. It seems like Aegis thought the warning wasn't good enough and decided to ban anyway. Seeing nothing to the contrary, it seems like Aegis decided that they were more senior or had the authority to override Nuno. So this really boils down to: In what priority do moderators punish? This is a pretty clear case of two mods enforcing the same issue with different results. Warning first, complied, then banned. I know the sprays don't require the warning, but this really doesn't pass the sniff test.
I do not know what happened in the specific case. I can say from experience that sometimes information is not passed quick enough been staff. By that I mean, Nuno might have PM'd the player to change the spray, and they might have, and in that time Aegis also saw the spray and went by protocol which is an immediate ban. Nuno hadn't yet informed Aegis that he had warned and Aegis would be unaware as a result since Aegis can't see Nuno's pm. When dealing with reports it's easy to have one staff member on the report at the time because of setting it in progress, but dealing with other rules like mic spam, sprays, or harassment it is possible to get overlap because you can't assign mods to dealing with the random things happening on the server. A side note is that even though Nuno was being nice in asking them to change, it was technically breaking protocol as protocol does not state there is a warning for gore sprays. Protocol usually has the highest priority
Yeah unless nuno got discretion to warn, should of just been a ban from the get go. If he did get discretion to warn probably best to lift the punishment in favor of what an admin gave discretion to do
Why would someone need “acceptable motivation” to change their spray other than the fact they are on a server to have fun @Aegis . We all get you are technically in the right to issue a ban here, but if this player doesnt have a terrible history it feels like you are flexing your ability to ban cause you can, not because it’s the right thing to do. Also, if you are banning for gore, either the spray is gore or it’s not gore. Even hitting at any ambiguity means you had personal doubt about issuing a ban over a picture on a server where this dude was having fun.
So we should wait to get discretion when it comes to a spray that can make people unconfortable ? There was clearly a lack of communication between Nuno and I, but I was already processing the ban when Nuno warned him. If banning him wasn't the right thing here, I believe the person who wrote the rules was not thinking about the common interest. I banned him for inapropriate/disturbing spray which had a sweet gore note in it. I didn't have any doubt when banning him, I just said he should not play with fire and then complain about getting burned. He was also playing with a VIP player who could have warned him about that.
Sometimes there's a touch of miscommunication when it comes to handling these things. This was the case here, Nuno had gone for discretion and leeway without saying so, and Aegis simply saw a Gore spray and banned for it. It would have probably been best to unban in this instance, but it's by no means necessary since the spray was still very much gore/disturbing.
